Subject: [Tools-team] Request To Publish: draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-06

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:09:49 -0600 (MDT)

Please post the attached draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-06.txt file 
as a Tools team Internet-Draft.

Thank you,

Alex.

_______________________________________________
Tools-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-team

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:18:39 -0600 (MDT)

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote:

> Please post the attached draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-06.txt 
> file as a Tools team Internet-Draft.

I hope this version addresses all issues raised so far. I did not have 
enough time to polish the document, unfortunately. If I did not miss 
anything important, we can still last call it and then polish as 
comments arrive.

I suspect that, due to many last-minute discussions/changes, we still 
have a few bugs to fix. However, we are likely to make changes after 
the first IETF-wide Last Call anyway, and the document is ready for 
wider review, IMO.

Please see the Change Log for specific major changes (quoted below).

Thanks,

Alex.

----------- change log --------------------
version 06

*  Instead of using a special section to map requirements to
    Toolset implementation stages, encode the stage with each
    requirement.  The reader now knows requirement "urgency" when
    reading the requirement itself, instead of having to search for
    the requirement code in the "Implementation stages" section.
    Also, this makes it much easier to make sure that all
    requirements are "staged".

*  Reflected Tools team concerns about HTML generation by placing
    that feature in the Enhancement implementation stage and
    explicitly mentioning that the feature may be gone before its
    implemented.

*  Added R143/a to avoid mismatching formats: Drafts containing
    PDF or Postscript format must not be auto-posted until the
    Toolset can validate that their content matches plain text
    format.  Documented rationale and future direction for format
    acceptance rules.

*  Defined "WG draft" as a draft which name starts with
    "draft-ietf-".  All other drafts are treated as individual
    drafts.

*  Support (eventually) fetching draft data using an
    email-embedded URL (Stanislav Shalunov).

*  Re-Resolved XXX37: support submitting drafts in main email
    "body", not just attachments (Stanislav Shalunov).

*  Renamed draft submission date into draft version creation date
    and documented how creation and expiration dates are validated
    and the fact that they do not depend on submission time.

*  Required implementation to be open-source (see R144/a).